AIBU to think it is ok for our family to use public funded childcare facilities targeted at more disadvantaged families than ours?

[tigermoth]

I live in an area of SE London where there's a high level of poverty and crime. There is also a lot of public funding going into services to help ease the burden on families - ie over 20 new children's centres have opened here offering a range of parenting and children's courses, affordable full time nursery places and creche facilities for parents and young children. There is also investment in children's adventure playgrounds where you can leave older children under the supervision of playworkers.

We are a relatively comfortably off, relatively stable family. Our children are too old for us make use the children's centres, but I will be taking my youngest son, age 8, to the brand new adventure playground tomorrow, with a view to leaving him there for a couple of hours.

Yet really, this adventure playground is not designed for parents like me who fancy a few childfree hours. It is designed to give children who come from less stable backgrounds a place to play safely.

I have also read in the newspaper that children's centres, nationally, are not fulfilling their brief to help families in the hard to reach, poorest, most disadvantaged sectors of the community. The funding is there, the staff are there, but it is often middle class parents who have cottoned on to the fact that these new facilities exist. Some children's centre, in an effort to make use of their funding are offering pilates classes and the like.

Which made me think. Is it right for our familiy to use funded family facilities that are open to us, but are are not really targetted at us?

Agree re pt about not really comparable playschemes/playgrounds etc with private education.

The education question has many sides and issues and frankly more import than playgrounds. Not comparable at all. And the argument that sending to private helps state is just plain laughable, deluded and well perhaps helps those who do send to private feel a bit better about it.

"by not sending your children to state schools we can be doing the state sector a huge disservice" couldn't agree more. which is why I won;t be considering private education for mine. I guess in the case of playschemes the difference is you're not doing a disservice by not using them (how may negatives in that sentence...). but when it comes to the question whether or not you are doing something wrong by using them I do think there are parallels with education - all the arguments people present here about it being ok to use them are arguments that can also be presented about schools.

I know I am doing the state system a disservice by not sending my children into it.

But, and this is a big but (no pun intended), if I don't look after my children's best interests, no-one else will.

I don't feel that continual government-ordered monitoring, very restricted playtime, physical exercise & outdoors time, and low academic expectations are in my children's best interests. I am not willing to sacrifice their education to the off-chance that things might improve for other people's in 25 years' time. That would be a seriously big leap of faith for most parents in my opinion.

Duchesse / xenia: you are being totally IRRELEVANT to the discussion. It's NOT about private vs state school.

I don't think adventure playgrounds are usually aimed at only children from particular backgrounds, historically at least. Is this a new thing? I think it is a bad idea. Everywhere should have fantastic free facilities and there should be outreach to those who are reluctant to use them. In any case, your ds2 would be an asset to any adventure playground, imo, tm, and I don't think you should give it a moment of worry.

Thank you for that, Zelda. It may surprise you to hear that I can actually read quite well. I was merely responding to what someone else said below re state schooling.

I find the dichotomy between state and private institutions in this country truly baffling. I mean, it's not as though this is the Wild West, with no institutions aimed at EVERYONE, no taxes, nor community. Why should a playzone be targeted solely at poor and struggling families? Surely that's the quickest way to put those people straight off them by implying that they are not coping with normla life and need special facilities? When youre poor, the only thing you have left is your dignity.

Similarly, why imply that state schooling is intrisically inferior if only people who can't afford private fees should use it? It automatically cheapens it to a charitable position which is extremely insulting to people who are poor.

I grew up astonishingly poor in a country where state education aimed very high. As a result, and because I did very well in that system, I felt powerful, and went on to an extremely good English university with a bunch of people who had hardly ever set foot outside their hallowed private schools, and had absolutely not a clue how most people lived.

Had I stayed in England during my childhood, I would have been marginalised at school for being poor, badly dressed, always sick, wearing glasses, being a young carer and generally just rather odd, ad would have received a pretty crappy education to boot. I might have been requested to attend a few schemes to offset the crappiness of my material conditions but ultimately would NOT have ended you where I am today. I would definitely NOT be where I am today, able to choose what I do, because I would not have had the education that I have.

It bugs the hell out of that the class system si still so very very compartmentalised in the UK, and that anybody should think that ONLY people with social problems should attend such a playscheme. Way to go to marginalise people even further. And I speak from experience. I'd really like to put a large explosive device under the entire class structure in this country. I'm not saying other places are perfect, but at least people have a chance in many other countries to pull themselves out of extreme poverty. Here thye're just swept under the carpet.

I'm all for inclusive schooling - and using every resource in my area is important...I don't want my child to grow up to be a snob. I was just disappointed that this thread was threatening to turn into another state vs. private slanging match!

And duchesse, as a scholarship child at a private school in central london, I know exactly what you're talking about, having experienced it. The teaching was wonderful, which meant that I was able to go on to a great university career, but the quota of rich brats to normal people meant I only kept in touch with one school friend in later life.

Also (and I really will stop now because I have to take the kids swimming) if I hadn't met a lovely community midwife through the surestart scheme, I would have really struggled to have a homebirth with my second daughter, as I couldn't get hold of anyone at the local hospital. She made sure it was all organised and I knew who to speak to. I think the poster who made the point that it's not only disadvantaged people who can be isolated in their community hit the nail on the head.

I lived in a Sure Start area when ds was born - inner London so lots of poor people and lots of well-off ones, too. The SS people were very keen for everyone to use the facilities a. to keep them going b. to avoid them becoming a ghetto which wouldn't appeal to anyone c. in an unspoken way, to get people to mix.

I enjoyed doing baby massage and baby nursery rhyme thingy with a huge variety of people. And the free first aid courses/smoke alarms reached people who wouldn't necessarily have had these things otherwise.

It is an issue that the SureStart schemes are not achieving what was hoped, but that's an issue for local councils/the government to think about, not individual service users. The schemes will be keeping track of the sorts of families using them, and this information should be used to monitor and to consider future direction. In the meantime, I don't think there is anything wrong with using facilities that are there primarily to help families. Yes there was a hope that disadvantaged families would find them especially welcome, which is why they are predominatly set up in poorer areas, but there is no bar to anyone else. I think the answer is to use them and support them if possible, whether through spreading the word or volunteering like Nick. Adventure playgrounds are great for all kids, and I think it's fantastic that they are being reestablished.

If there's no shortgae of spaces there's no isue is there?

used to work in a post funded by surestart- and it is true, many schemes are considered to be 'failing' their target groups because the groups get monopolised by MC famillies who then take along their mates and make it ahrder for the peole targeted (we were in an exceedingly disadvantaged area, aprticualrly tasked with targeting pewople who had eg PND, social phobias, etc).

But simialarly its not good if these palces become ghetto-ised either, my own family group ahd a mix of MC and WC famillies, with a few really disadvantaged (socials ervices involvement) famillies and it ticked over nicely and people made friends they would otherwise have never met.

sorry I haven't answered the OP, having been sidetracked by an intense irritation .. no YANBU definitely not .. if you were taking up a place that would be different I suppose .. .. kids are equal though

and most 'middle class' families I know struggle on a day to day basis with decisions over whether to afford A or B .. unless MC is now a synonym for feckin rich, why shouldn't your children benefit from as much as you can give them

My DD attends a Surestart playgroup twice a week. It is as as good if not better than the nearest good private day nursery. It is £15 cheaper per session.

Most of the children speak no English, their parents are Polish or Somalian. The group was originally set-up so the parents could attend English language classes. Some of the referrals are from social services and are to provide support for isolated families.

The playgroup is full now.The manager knows that I use the session mainly so I can have a break from DD. We are a white 'middle class' family. I have had the message that they are pleased to get a mix of families. It is good that the service is not stigmatised, and all parents are more likely to want to use it. It means that the children who attend reflect the diverse mix of the community it serves.

My DD is very fortunate to have this opportunity at such an early age.

Look, people don't go to Surestart facilities because the whole scheme smacks of "Darrrrlings, look, we could see you were struggling, and Brenda and I thought, wouldn't it be just brillo if we could give you all a nice little room to go to where the children can play with nice toys and you can chat to other poor mums like yourselves? Oh and we all know how poor you are, so it's free too!"

It's condescending. NOBODY wants to feel like they belong in a scheme set up for poor, isolated and sometimes downright incompetant parents, so the only people who do use it are the ones who know damn well it's not aimed at them.

newlifenewname, I see you have a lot of background knowledge of this. Can you expand on your point that the middle classes can be hard to reach? By this, do you mean they are more likely to bypass early years state schemes in favour of private schemes?

I think there are powerful arguments here about the importance of a social mix at childcare centres and adventure playgrounds.

I have been doing my bit this morning - went to church(quite a middle class congregation) and told a couple of parents about the adventure playground. Neither of them had any idea such a facility existed or that children 8 years and over could be left there, despite the families living within a 10 minute walk of the place.

newnamenewlife, I fit your picture of a time poor middle class parent to a tee. I work full time. Even though I have approx 10 weeks paid leave a year, I take all of this during school holidays so I can look after my sons. We have no extended family nearby so there has never been any readily available free childcare from family. For the 13 years we have had children, if I wanted a few hours to myself on a Saturday afternoon, I either had to pay for it (babysitters, shopping centre creches etc) or negotiate it (which means justifying it) with my dh or friends.

It was an amazing feeling to drop my son off at an adventure playground, not have to explain to anyone why I needed a break (as I'd do with dh or friends), have no one asking me for fees, no strict time limit to adhere to (apart from playground opening and closing times), and no feeling that I owe any one person a favour.

That's nto always true you know IMHO- lots and lots of people surestart uses are referrals from elsewhere (by far the majority where I worked) and have to wait for palces at the Nursery / gardening schemes etc.

Ad not all surestart 9well I was homestart but worked with both) staff are posh..... I was raised on a council estate lsited in the ten most deorived in the country, trust me- I am ANYTHING but posh!! Loads of our staff were ex-service users as well.

No, no, I know it's not true, but that's how a lot of the 'target group' feel.

probably that depends though- we were so over stretched that we had to be requested to come into a house to visit. For the actual surestart home visiter (always ex users- poepole who were known in playgrounds etc) we had a structure whereby every new birth in the area triggered a visit, didn't matter if you lived in the council estate or the manor house. I know what you mean- we've felt like thgat as well when we have had visits re our Sn kids, but its certainly not the way the poeple on the schemes intend it, and not reallys oemthinga nyone can address very well. either you offer- in which case some people will feel targeted- or you don't in which case they'll not even get the chance of the help, iyswim?

The hard to reach are defined by either inability or unwillingness (discomfort?) to use extended services aimed at children and achieving the desired outcomes from Every Child Matters. Now, this is not class distinct and thus one could meet the criteria in being disabled, mentally ill, socially awkward, depressed, a lone parent, low income, lacking in support from friends or extended family, without a car, living on a farm up a hill that nobody knows about, coming from an ethnic minority, speaking a different language, having a speech impediment, a disfigurement, being gay, being an older or very young parent, working a 60 hour week and thus out of the parenting loop.

The main aim of any service like this is to enhance the life chances and life experience of children.

The fact that a family is short on time, doesn't have a granny to babysit while the ironing is done or meals cooked for the freezer - leaving more time to play and interract with children - makes that family in need of and worthy of the facilites that are provided under these schemes. There is not a sliding scale of worthiness because "Every Child Matters"!

To perpetuate this notion that if one is middle class/wealthy/whatever one doesn't or shouldn't use government targeted services, further divides and makes the 'hard to reach' even harder to reach, in my view.

Through our children we could reach out to those hard to reach individuals with an approach that is child-like and class free. If the children don't make an issue of it then neither should we.

I don't see why we can't use these facilities.. I don't consider ourselves poor but I certainly couldn't afford to pay for the same activities in facilities not in the sure start programme (not that there are that many outside sure start) That said I do feel uncomfortable about using them, as I also feel that I shouldn't be using them. Therefore don't which is a shame as the kids miss out.

Did any of that make any sense! lol

If these facilities really were targeted for poor families, there would be rules preventing you from using them.

It is a good thing that children from solvent, stable families use the facilities too, because then it won't be seen as something that only poor people do, and your children will add positively to the social mix.

Interesting thoughts on here. I try to 'support' (ie bag places for my dd) child-orientated activities in the community, half-term plays, library activities and so on and even better if they're subsidised as most of them are. She even got her face in the brochure advertising this summer's play activities for my borough!! (Not that I signed her up to anything this year as I was unimpressed with what was on offer for once.....) I don't tend to take my dd to adventure playgrounds per se as she gets plenty of running about anyway. Do you think that you're depriving a more 'deserving child' of a place by taking your LO? If not, continue as you are .